Chapter
54

TRANSFERRING
OUT OF

PARAPSYCHOLOGY

Before continuing with the events in 1972 that ultimately
led into the CIA-funded "Eight-Month Project" at Stanford Research
Institute (SRI), it is meaningful to begin elaborating upon a particular
topic that can lead to a more exact and larger understanding of what was
involved.

The importance of that topic cannot be emphasized enough,
especially with regard to those who would like to enhance their own powers.

The topic centers on what are referred to as "frames
of reference," the contexts and boundaries of which constitute substantial
mental frameworks through which people process whatever information they
encounter.

Frames of reference are thus of extraordinary importance,
so much so that it is surprising (even astonishing!!!), how little investigative
attention is paid to them. Indeed, many people dont even know they
have frames of reference, and are completely unaware that their "realities"
are, as it were, produced and confined by them.

The mental fulcrum of this topic can be stated quite
simply: how one thinks about something has a great deal to do with whether
it will be adequately understood or not.

Beyond this simple statement, however, it is quite well
known that people think about a given thing in different ways, with the
predictable result that the given thing becomes surrounded with different
versions of it.

Thereafter, what might be called direct and accurate
mental contact with the thing itself can become distorted, deflected, or
lost within this or that version, with the predictable result that the version
ultimately takes mental precedence over the thing itself.

There is a predicable result here, too. The versions
can be mentally understood within this or that frame of reference, but in
ways that may have very little direct connection to the thing itself.

The import of the four paragraphs above can be reduced
to a very simple formula composed of five essential parts:

There are people.

There are things.

Between the people and the things are the ways the
people think about the things.

The ways of thinking result in different versions,
realities, and understandings about the things.

Yet, the things ARE what they ARE despite the different
versions, realities, and understandings -- and which may or may not
MATCH what the things ARE.

As simple and basic as this five-part formula is, the
whole of it is none the less deeply, VERY deeply, cocooned within complexities
so dense and turgid that each of the five parts vanish from any possible
perception of their actual existence.

There are a great number of identifiable reasons for
this. But certainly a fundamental one is that people, on average, attribute
more value to THEIR versions, realities, and understandings than they do
to things themselves.

If this is considered as calmly as possible, it can
be seen that people exist and that things exist, but that versions, realities,
and understandings are merely mental constructs having only quasi-existence
according to the value attributed to them.

Furthermore, human history both illustrates and confirms
that the quasi-existing mental constructs constitute only temporary affairs.

Taken altogether, versions, realities, and understandings
that individuals are somehow exposed to in order to format their thinking
processes constitute FRAMES OF REFERENCE all individuals utilize to assess
what they do and do not become aware of.

The phrase FRAME OF REFERENCE is important enough to
be included in most dictionaries which define it as:

"A set or system (as of facts or ideas) serving
to orient or give particular meaning."

One cannot quibble too much with this definition, except
to mention that "facts" of and in themselves seldom signify much
unless they can be associated to "ideas" whether imprinted from
socio-cultural environments or somehow gotten up fresh from within this
or that individual.

And indeed, as just about everyone experiences at one
time or another, various idea-based frames of reference need not necessarily
be bothered with any "facts" at all.

As it is, however, "facts" exist everywhere,
and it is not too much to say that we live in a Universe thickly populated
with them. But they usually mean little unless they can be incorporated
into "ideas."

For clarity, we more or less have to say that say that
"facts" exist naturally, but that "ideas" about them
one way or another need to be incorporated into mental constructs which,
in turn, serve as frames of reference.

The bottom line here is that what might be called the
HUMAN PROCESS OF THINKING is obliged to acquire at least basic workhorse
frames of references through which each individual thinks about this or
that so that they can format their own "ideas" with regard to
whatever.

From this, it can hypothetically be supposed that the
NUMBER of frames of reference one has available can become important. For
example, one might have ten frames of reference. But fifty, a hundred, or
perhaps a thousand of them might be better, depending on what is involved.

The utter importance of the NUMBER of frames of reference
becomes apparent if the frames are associated with the concept of NEXUS.

This term is taken from the Latin NECTERE, which means
"to bind together." In English, NEXUS is defined as "connection,
link; a connected group or series."

In this sense, the NUMBER of frames of reference one
has available will probably link up, or connect together, to provide a mental
nexus via which encountered information will be processed.

Frames of reference and their resulting nexus, are sometimes
referred to as mindsets, habits of mind, frames of mind, and maps of mind.
But whatever the terminology, they all have one thing in common: they can,
as they mostly do, prejudice or bias how one views and interprets information.

Those interested in enlarging their frames of reference
with regard to this topic might wish to read MAPS OF THE MIND by Charles
Hampden-Turner (1981), and FRAMES OF MIND by Howard Gardner (1983).

*

It goes without saying, of course, that frames of references
are most useful and productive if the ideas upon which they are based can
be formulated to most closely MATCH essential reality as contrasted to NOT-reality
or unreality.

In this particular sense, the topic of frames of reference
is extremely important to the real story of remote-viewing and to the comprehension
and development of the necessary faculties in individuals. So it will be
expanded upon at various points in the many chapters ahead.

But the purpose of introducing the topic at this point
serves as a fundamental basis to begin clarifying a number of factors about
the SRI project which otherwise have suffered from an overwhelming burden
of erroneous, faulty, irrelevant, and even illusionary frames of reference.

This "clarifying" was horribly difficult even
at the start-up of the project, and it remains so down until this writing
-- so much so that the quintessential frames of reference for the remote-viewing
project are cocooned within versions that are inappropriate to them.

It is helpful here to note that QUINTESSENCE is defined
as "the essential essence of a thing in its purest and most concentrated
form." The most appropriate antonym, or direct opposite, to quintessence,
is, of course, POLLUTANT, defined as "something that befouls or taints,
especially by contamination."

In elaborating the distinction between quintessence
and pollutants in relationship to the story of remote-viewing, it might
seem that this writer, usually so humble otherwise, is suddenly assuming
a dictatorial mountain-top position over the whole landscape of what is
involved.

Well, one of the thick, turgid, and major layers that
WAS and still IS part-and-parcel of the real story of remote viewing is
composed of the MANY conflicts between frames of reference that collected
around the project, and which have also burdened every interest in remote
viewing since.

If, then, the larger REAL story of remote viewing is
to be put on record by THIS writer, the REAL story of those conflicting
frames of reference must also take its appropriate place within the larger
one.

*

To now move expeditiously onward, you will of course
have noted the title of this chapter -- TRANSFERRING OUT OF PARAPSYCHOLOGY
-- which, at first take, might not make much apparent sense.

But even if the meaning of this chapter title seems
obscure at first, its most obvious implication is that the SRI project,
from its initial 1972 outset, was conceptualized by Dr. Puthoff so as to
enable constructive work toward discovering and establishing what were referred
to as "novel approaches."

"Novel approaches" clearly implies a significant
change or shift with regard to frames of reference.

It is especially important to point up three factors
in this regard:

One of the disadvantages of frames of reference
is that they can mentally become locked in or locked down with the result
that many find it exceedingly difficult to change them.

Thus, throughout the project, it was always difficult
to convey the aspect of novel approaches to many.

And it is this aspect that HAS BEEN TOTALLY FORGOTTEN
by now, even by some who should know better.

The best way to elucidate this situation is to first
describe what was departed from or transferred out of -- after which the
title of this chapter will become more understandable.

*

Since its promulgation, parapsychology was (and still
is) most certainly composed of its own special frames of reference that
historically evolved within its workings during the first sixty years of
the twentieth century.

Parapsychologys frames of reference achieved wide
and powerful exposure, at first principally through the research work and
popular books of Dr. J. B. Rhine during the 1930s and thereafter.

The broad societal result was that anything "psychic"
became loosely interpreted through those special frames of reference, or
at least through what people could understand of them in a popularized grab-bag
kind of way -- including scientists of other disciplines who knew little
or nothing of parapsychology (and didnt want to.)

The wide-spread popular download from those frames of
reference (whether well understood or not) was, so to speak, that "if
it could be thought of as psychic, it was parapsychological."

But even before the advent of Dr. J. B. Rhine, the inner
core of parapsychologists never had in mind anything that resembled this
mistaken and ambiguous popular version of their own formatted research discipline
composed of definite contours.

The central difficulty in determining the great differences
between the popular version and the official inner-core idea of parapsychology
is that few bothered themselves to READ about the criteria (i.e., frames
of reference) that were set up by parapsychologists to identify and circumscribe
their emerging discipline.

Those criteria can be found unambiguously set forth
in several early publications, but they were more neatly brought together
and published in PARAPSYCHOLOGY: SOURCES OF INFORMATION, by Rhea A. White
and Laura A. Dale published in 1973.

Since interested readers will probably have difficulty
in locating a copy of this book, the formal definition of parapsychology
found on page 13 is provided as follows:

"PARAPSYCHOLOGY (the modern and more restrictive
term for psychical research) is the field which uses the scientific method
to investigate phenomena for which there appear to be no normal (that is
[physical] sensory) explanations.

"Basically this refers to phenomena subsumed under
the general term PSI, which in its motor aspect is called psychokinesis
and in its more familiar mental aspect, extrasensory perception (comprising
telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition). All these phenomena have been
observed under laboratory conditions.

"In the vastly more complex and intricate world
of actual life, some form of PSI often seems to be a probable explanation
of such human experiences as dreams that come true, waking visions of events
occurring at a distance, inexplicable hunches, and similar occurrences.

"PSI is also a useful concept in explaining much
that happens in mediumship. Since parapsychologists have established that
PSI is a part of living behavior, many have hypothesized that what in the
early years of psychical research was thought to be evidence of communication
with the dead can better be explained in terms of the combination of some
form of PSI with the dramatizing propensities of the unconscious minds of
the medium and other persons involved.

"It is these building blocks of telepathy, clairvoyance,
precognition, and psychokinesis that parapsychology uses to extend the bridge
of knowledge into the unknown.

"But contrary to uninformed popular opinion, parapsychology
does NOT deal with astrology, numerology, Tarot cards, theosophy, witchcraft,
or other occult systems of practices-- or, if so, only insofar as they empirically
demonstrate that at their base some form of PSI is operating."

It is worth mentioning here that the term EMPIRICAL
has three definitions. It is the third meaning that is being utilized just
above, i.e., "capable of being verified or disproved by observation
and experiment."

However, the first definition of the term is: "relying
on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system of
theory."

From the foregoing quotation regarding parapsychological
frames of reference, it can be seen that parapsychology was defined by parapsychologists
themselves as a "restrictive" field of research which uses the
"scientific method" to investigate human-associated phenomena
that apparently have no physical explanations.

However, although this definition seems straightforward,
appropriate, and even logical enough, there are certain significant, but
subtle implications within it that can escape observation unless they are
pointed up.

The term RESTRICT of course means "to confine within
bounds, to prohibit, to limit," while the term RESTRICTIVE is defined
as "anything that restricts," but ALSO as "limiting the reference
or references of."

The definition of parapsychology clearly indicates that
parapsychology is the field of PSI research that was to be restricted to
and by "the scientific method."

Most dictionaries define SCIENTIFIC METHOD simply as:

"Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit
of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of problem, the collection
of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing
of hypotheses."

But the same dictionaries usually do not indicate that
the chief workhorse of the scientific method IN PRACTICE involves quantitative
statistical analysis.

STATISTICS is defined as:

"A collection of quantitative data; a branch
of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation,
and presentation of masses of numerical data; and

A statistic is a function of the observations in
a sample designed to estimate a parameter of the population from which
the sample was drawn, or to carry out a test of significance of a hypothesis."

Returning briefly to the parapsychological definition
of parapsychology as "the more restrictive field which uses the scientific
method," it is now more clear that:

the initial designers of parapsychology parameters
restricted THEIR frames of reference to be consistent with the frames
of reference of the scientific method, and

which methods lean very heavily on statistics and
statistical analyses.

Indeed, it is amply recorded that this was conceptualized
and set in motion in order to "make parapsychology scientifically acceptable,"
on the political assumption that doing so would permit the full acceptance
of parapsychologists into the ranks of the mainstream-funded modern sciences
themselves.

And although parapsychologists did NOT (and mostly still
do not) fully comprehend the enormity and seriousness of mainstream societal
resistance to PSI, this effort was fully appropriate, quite honorable, and
understandable.

From the foregoing discussion, it can be seen that parapsychology
perhaps should not have been called simply that, but rather might have been
referred to as something like STATISTICAL PARAPSYCHOLOGY. Indeed, it is
quite well understood that parapsychologists adapted to quantitative statistics
with a vengeance.

*

To now get on with this somewhat laborious effort, it
needs to be pointed up that there are phenomena that are amenable to quantitative
statistical analysis, and there are phenomena that are NOT.

For ease of terminology, phenomena that are not amenable
to quantitative analysis are usually thought of as being QUALITATIVE in
their ESSENTIAL nature, so much so that they cannot be broken down or reduced
to bits, pieces, or bytes in order to measure, count, and quantify them.

Much beyond stating that they exist, it is exceedingly
difficult to address the exact nature of qualitative phenomena, but which
will figure into discussions in chapters ahead.

At this point, however, it is worthwhile to briefly
consider the distinctions between MICRO and MACRO -- if only because those
distinctions ultimately came to figure largely in the project at SRI.

MACRO refers to large, extensive, or generic. And so
MICRO of course refers to small, minute, or particular. Indeed, the meaning
of MICRO as a prefix to another term -- such as microscope or microphone
-- is taken as meaning "to enlarge" something that is small or
minute.

One of the advantages for considering the distinctions
between MICRO and MACRO is that the micro can more easily be discovered,
identified, and dealt with in quantifiable statistical terms.

Since it is easier to deal with micro affects, effects,
and phenomena, it is understandable why micro quantification procedures
have been successful and why the methods of modern science were founded
upon them in such full part.

It should now be pointed up that there is an important
distinction between early psychical research and later parapsychology.

The early psychical researchers interested themselves
in macro-PSI phenomena. Those interests, however, could not be integrated
into the micro quantification procedures demanded by science proper.

So the later parapsychologists more or less attempted
to remedy this lack of integration by focusing on micro aspects of PSI,
and statistically presenting their research results in this regard, on the
assumption that doing THAT much would commence the integration.

What they failed to take into account, however, was
that even in science proper, a micro this or that is of little interest
unless it can be ENLARGED to some productive end in a societal system that
demands product.

Indeed, statistical parapsychological experiments and
research mean very little if they only signify a slight statistical deviation
above chance expectation.

In the end, though, and especially as of 1972, statistical
parapsychology had accumulated a very large body of work that confirmed
little or only slight statistical significance of the phenomena they were
testing for. AND they had ignored attempting the discovery of any methods
that might ENLARGE any format of micro-significant PSI.

In other words, there was no hint of achieving "practical
applications of PSI" anywhere within the contexts of statistical parapsychology.

*

Before moving toward the end of this possibly difficult
chapter, it is worthwhile to briefly comment upon the drawbacks and limits
of statistical analysis.

These were somewhat understood as of 1972, but after
that they became increasingly commented upon in various disciples, such
as archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, genetics, linguistics, and even
astrophysics.

As brief background, statistics is the science of collecting
and classifying a group of facts according to their relative number and
determining certain values that represent characteristics of the group.

The most familiar statistical measure is the arithmetic
MEAN, which is an average value for a group of numerical observations.

A second important statistic or statistical measure
is the standard deviation, which is a measure of how much the individual
observations are scattered about the mean. Other statistics indicate other
characteristics of the group of observations.

In addition to the problem of computing certain statistics
for a particular group of observations, there is the problem of sampling,
or the problem of the sample group.

Sample groups are taken from among larger groups, and
so there is always the first problem of whether the sample group constitutes
a representative figure for the larger group.

This problem of sampling can be solved only by resorting
to the theory of probability and higher mathematics.

There are at least four stress factors that statistical
analysis can seldom escape altogether.

First, no matter how sophisticated the mathematics that
can be applied to statistical methods, the final yield only indicates a
probability, not a certainty, that the assertions behind the mathematics
are true.

Second, the probability arrived at may be impossible
to demonstrate.

Third, there has been no shortage of new mathematical
formulas developed within various disciplines, and so something depends
of which formula statisticians utilize to crunch their numbers -- while
submitting the same samples to different statistical analyses often yields
significantly different probabilities.

Fourth, the contexts of samples considered consistent
enough can suddenly undergo change by new discoveries regarding them, and
so statistical analysis of a given sample is relative to what the sample
is thought to represent at any given time.

It is somewhat amusing to learn that "science"
of statistics was invented by a gambler as a way to help wager bits in line
with statistically indicated probabilities. Thus, the USE of statistical
analysis has always been a risk-taking affair: i.e., this or that statistical
number crunching gives this or that probability. After the numerical probability
is achieved, all that remains is how much is one willing to bet that the
probability is true.

With regard to statistical parapsychology, its researchers
confirmed time and again that microPSI is statistically present in the many
different kinds of samples with which they have experimented. Indeed, there
can be no scientific or any other kind of doubt about this.

This combined work, through the years, confirms the
very high PROBABILITY that microPSI activity is somehow constantly going
on in just about everyone -- but most certainly within the human species
as a whole.

*

As a result of the foregoing combined observations,
it is finally possible to address the title of this chapter in relationship
to the project at SRI.

To do this, it must once more be reminded that in late
1969 the interest of various intelligence agencies was shocked into existence
by the revelation that significant research of certain phenomena had been
going on in the Soviet Union for some time. I have given a rough introduction
to of this research in chapter 2.

The agencies did not yet have a good grasp on what the
Soviet phenomena consisted of, except for the certainty that they involved
"paranormal stuff" along the lines of Western frames of reference
having to do with influencing-at-a-distance, mind reading and influencing,
telepathy, and PK knock-out potentials.

Between 1969 and about the beginning of 1972, a number
of "threat analysis" papers had been prepared and circulated within
the various agencies, and among select high government officials.

It was for certain that the Soviet research consisted
of a very large, even huge, multi-disciplinary effort, and which was logically
assumed to be dominated and controlled by the KGB and the Soviet military.
THIS was highly suggestive of "threat potential."

However, it was for sure that the CIA and the American
and European military did not possess "matching projects," and
would have been laughed out of office and town if they did.

To further complicate matters, the first translations
by the Air Force translation center of the captured Soviet documents were
badly translated.

The translators automatically had assumed, for example,
that the Soviet phrase "electromagnetic bio-information transfer"
should be translated as "telepathy," and that the East German
term "psychotronics" should be translated as "parapsychology.

Because of those inexact translations, it was initially
assumed that the Soviets were trying to reproduce the Western modes and
frames of reference of statistical parapsychology.

If that was so, then there would not be much "threat,"
because American parapsychology had, at best, only demonstrated the statistical
existence of PSI at slightly above chance expectation. Based on those statistical
parapsychology frames of reference, the probability of Soviet PSI was equally
low.

For some strange reasons that were never made clear,
the early translators of the relevant Soviet documents had trouble translating
the Russian term that meant AMPLIFICATION, the first definition of which
in English and Russian are quite similar: "to increase, extend, or
expand," which in English are generally associated with "development."
So, the Soviet "amplification" was translated as "to develop."

[NOTE: For further elucidation here, see Chapter 13,
entitled BOOSTING THE BRAIN, in PSYCHIC WARFARE: THREAT OR ILLUSION? by
Martin Ebon (1983).]

But at some point, a second English definition needed
to be applied:

TO UTILIZE AN INPUT OF POWER SO AS TO OBTAIN AN OUTPUT
OF GREATER MAGNITUDE.

Agency analysts did not know what this meant exactly,
but the idea of "Greater Magnitude" was familiar enough, largely
because intelligence agencies and military evaluators are always busy assessing
"magnitudes" of just about everything.

It was at this point that the Soviet term "Electromagnetic
bio-information" took on alarming significance. After all, electromagnetism
is not only universally acknowledged as a source of energy and power, but
is closely connected to amplification, which in turn is directly connected
to the "threat" of Greater Magnitude.

The upshot of this was a kind of well-covered-up panic
the American public never learned about, and Washington threat analysts
were ordered back to their drawing boards to consider the unnerving difference
between what amounted to unamplified microPSI and the possibility of amplified
macroPsi.

At this juncture, whether they believed in PSI or not,
members of those intelligence agencies responsible for ensuring the defense
of the nation obviously had to commence an active threat assessment aimed
at discovering whether amplified or amplifiable PSI of ANY KIND could indeed
exist.

It was at this point that statistical parapsychology,
including its frames of reference, bit the dust on three counts.

First and foremost, American and European parapsychology
of any kind had always held that forms of PSI were anomalous psychological
products of the minds or peculiar mental make-ups of given, somewhat special
or naturally gifted individuals.

Thus, parapsychology possessed no frames of reference
that PSI might be attributable to anything other than some kind of unusual
psychological functioning.

Indeed, if the terminology of the Soviet research was
taken at face value, then the Soviets were aggressively attributing "bio-information"
effects to something more like bio-energetics rather than some unusual kind
of mentalism. Parapsychologys frames of reference along these lines
were NOT a match for or equivalent to the Soviet work.

Second, in 1972 what was termed by the intelligence
agencies as parapsychologys MIND-SET was completely focused on statistical
microPSI of low or threshold significance.

This of and in itself could not be thought of as leading
into any PSI phenomena equivalent to a probable threat potential. So statistical
parapsychology again provided no frames-of-reference match for the Soviet
efforts.

Third, frames of reference that were totally absent
within the contexts of statistical parapsychology, and in fact in parapsychology
as a whole, had to do with potentially developing PSI into "practical
applications." It could be pointed up that the bigger fault here did
not particularly lie with parapsychology per se, but with mainstream societal
powers which would not appreciate any REAL development of practical PSI
applications.

Nevertheless, as contrasted to the history of early
psychical research, most of whom did not mind tackling sociological showdowns
and shoot-outs, a study of the history of "scientific" parapsychology
show a careful desire for as much sociological neutralism as possible.

Thus, no frames of reference for amplification of microPSI
into macroPSI either.

*

I will now direct the reader back to chapters 28
and 34 of this narrative, both of which
are about Dr. Harold E. Puthoff, and who had earlier circulated various
proposals to numerous funding agencies in Washington and elsewhere.

In one of those proposals (1971), he had petitioned
for funding to undertake studies of the physics of psychoenergetic processes
down to and including the level of quantum mechanics.

In other proposals, he had advocated the need for "alternative
hypotheses" and "novel concepts" via which telepathy and
clairvoyance, for example, might be tested, developed, and enhanced.

The central idea of his proposals was of course suggestive
of departing from standard statistical parapsychology frames of reference,
i.e., transferring out of those frames of reference into those of the quantum
mechanics of consciousness of the "life force."

Furthermore, he already had some idea of the nature
of the Soviet work; he was NOT a parapsychologist but a physicist of some
reputation; and he was already installed in the nations second largest
think tank wherein other kinds of government contracts were implemented.

It was thus that the interests of the Washington agencies
were transferred out of parapsychology. The statistical parapsychologists
were quietly but completely by-passed by the intelligence agencies, and
they were surprised and confounded when rumors began circulating that "the
government" was going to fund PSI research, not within their auspices,
but at SRI which had never before sponsored such research.